Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

This weekend before a show a bandmate and fellow Trekkie and I where having a debate over the Prime Directive. I was defeating it by saying that it allowed pre-warp civilizations to progress naturally and not destory themselves while he took the opposite view that it was the height of arrogence because it sent a message that those with technology and knowledge are better because they know better. He stated that knowledge should be shared to better everybody and thay witholding information was a way to keep cultures and people down and in thier place.

Your both right to a certain extent. But then what technology do you share, medical, agricultural, weapons to you place a limit on what you share? Because anything less than everything is a form of the Prime Directive.

__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.

I think that any society that thinks it is better to allow a whole sentient race to die rather than alter their knowledge of the universe is fucked in the head.

Withholding technology and not taking sides in internal squabbles is one thing, but allowing a race to die because they don't understand some of the dangers around them is just plain evil. It's like letting a toddler get hit by a bus because it doesn't understand the danger of wandering out into the street.

If the Prime Directive is so arrogent, what would have happened if the Spainards use it with the Meso-Americans instead of using the raping, pillaging and 500 years of Catholic guilt and cutlrual assminilation. Would the world be a different place? Would things have turned out as bad?

__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.

If the Prime Directive is so arrogent, what would have happened if the Spainards use it with the Meso-Americans instead of using the raping, pillaging and 500 years of Catholic guilt and cutlrual assminilation. Would the world be a different place? Would things have turned out as bad?

No one will ever know.

But you're automatically saying that the mistakes we've made before we'll make again. I don't think anyone here is presenting the idea that Starfleet officers raping the natives and giving them blankets infected with small-pox would be allowed.

Plus, in a post-scarcity economy that Trek presents, there would be little of value to be gained from primitive cultures that you help in most cases.

You mean, as a result of Vulcans regretting their interference with other races, particularly humanity?

__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q